Wikipedia

User talk:Nsaa/User talk 2010

< User talk:Nsaa
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Nsaa in topic Heavy-handedness at CRU email controversy move discussion
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2010.

User talk 2010

Unreferenced BLPs

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Nsaa! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Eva Herman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You probably could have titled your new section (About "trick to hide the decline" – Disruptive behavior by removing well sourced comments?) better. Remember to assume good faith. Prodego talk 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've slightly rephrased it. Hope that's better. Please take a look at this Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia where it's very difficult WP:AGF - just look at the tone in the reverts done (mainly without discussing it). … Nsaa (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Refs FAIL

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Do NOT revert again. I just fixed all that stuff. ONLY repair what is broken. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix only what is broken! You wholesale reversion re-added all the stupid spaces into the reflist that the bot had screwed up. DO NOT use revert/undo unless you know what you are doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
e.c. Ehhh your edit made them broke, see my answer here User_talk:Scjessey#OrphanReferenceFixer:_Help_on_reversion in this revision. Ok see your point (I dont see any spaces? Ok to remove them again off course :-) Nsaa (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If you read the talk page of the bot, you will see what the problem was with whitespace. It is in the thread immediately above the one you started. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, found it here. Sorry for the inconvenience. Nsaa (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)



User talk 2010

RfD nomination of Glaciergate

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Glaciergate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Amazongate

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Amazongate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Pachaurigate

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Pachaurigate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

You're welomce to raise an issue with me on my talk page. Once.

Once I've said "drop this dead donkey" that should be a hint that you don't need to say exactly the same thing yet again William M. Connolley (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misusing your talk page by removing [1] [2] parts of the discussion. Reading Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines could be wise. I've just stated that for the record. Nsaa (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
To which guideline do you refer, Nsaa? Presumably you have looked at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. . dave souza, talk 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes "Users should not remove only portions of another user's comment, nor edit their comment in any other way." Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Nsaa (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
"Users should not remove only portions of another user's comment" Yes but you can remove the lot. "nor edit their comment in any other way" as in don`t chop it up. There is no prohibition to removing comments from your own talk page, else people could post abuse and it would be there forever :) --mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, mark nutley, you beat me to it. The diffs show whole posts being removed, which is ok. . . dave souza, talk 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(e.c.)I don't disagree. As I stated I think his behavior is bad [3] "Why do you [4] just remove parts of an ongoing discussion? Bad bad bad, but since it's you page I can't say much. Nsaa (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)"]. I've not claimed that he has broken any formal rule. Nsaa (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nsaa, could you please use the edit summarys, else i see this I don't disagree. As I stated I think his behavior is bad [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=341281431&oldid=341281028 "Why do you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/i) in my watchlist :) I also fixed your diffs :) --mark nutley (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, just lasy and pasted in my comment. Nsaa (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misusing your talk page by removing - no. I reject your assertion. If you think otherwise, and care to pursue it, find yourself an admin. Don't bother me about your incorrect interpretations of policy any more William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not the contributor

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I redacted part of your comment here. Please remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

E-mail-theft-gate listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect E-mail-theft-gate. Since you had some involvement with the E-mail-theft-gate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

  Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 13:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you have any spesific edit in mind since this message has been given? Nsaa (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it's a duplicate. I checked the notification log at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications and didn't find your username there. Please disregard it. I've made 36 or so notifications today and none of them were about specific edits, they're just formal notifications of the probation, logged on the appropriate page. --TS 22:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

3rr

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice! On what article did I engage in an edit war? Please. Tagging my username with this without any explanations is bad behavior by you Hipocrite (talk · contribs). Nsaa (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Alerting you to a rule you might not know about is good behavior. You are at 2r on Talk:Geert Wilders, 2r on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You seems to already gone over it [5]. Nsaa (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's good that you read the warning I posted, then, because "prohibits making more than three reversions" would require four reversions. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did it, and I feel great! Correlation isn't causation but damn if it isn't the best we've got.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [6] ScienceApologist (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I should have raised it at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement‎‎ in a more neutral tone with more diffs. Nsaa (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Please do that in the future. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [7], [8]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general comments, and we have seen some backsliding. The first diff you gave was a direct response to a claim by ChrisO (talk · contribs) in his RfE where he states "On every occasion the proponents have been told that WP:NPOV and WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal specifically preclude the use of such terminology, and every attempt to introduce such terms has been rejected.". Should I not be allowed to answer this (his claim about WP:WTA)? The second diff was somewhat off topic Agree with you on that. But unhappyly no one reacted to ChrisOs wery bad behavior[9][10] in the two edits above. I will still answering such claims as I did in my first edit (maybe phrase it otherwise to better following Rfe standards). I will try to not answer [11] in the future to help us getting a more cooperative environment. Nsaa (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The first ChrisO diff you point out is indeed one of the ones I singled out in requesting that they focus better on the topic of explaining a dispute rather than fighting it over again in a new venue. Thank you for anything you can do to help reduce the level of bickering at that page and elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Arguing the quality of various sources is good, but some of this crosses over into debate over the topic itself rather than our encyclopedic coverage of it. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

can you be more spesific on were I cross the line according to you? In my last comment in that tread I do an extremely important reference to wp:rs about usages of blogs which some of the others have greatly misunderstod (over and over again) by dismissing sources by saying its a blog. Secondly my argument about taking the man is a big problem on this discussion page. Idealy everytime a person do this I (or other should have notified them on their talk page. Will try that also). Nsaa (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You repeated the majority of the bishophill blog post you cite, including formatting, and your tone in the preceding paragraph also veers a bit away from collegial. I acknowledge that there are other issues with other editors in that thread, but confining your posts to the issue at hand would be helpful. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Don't refer to me as a "vandal" just because I removed your tendentious restoration of anti-Wikipedia opinion from an article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as you don't do productive work like this I strive to assume good faith... Nsaa (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you seem to be living in a dream world if you claim to be assuming good faith. You just accused me of being a vandal because I removed anti-Wikipedia commentary by climate skeptics from a talk page that you placed there without consensus. You appear to have dedicated yourself to getting anti-Wikipedia material on to that talk page. Why? If you hate Wikipedia, why edit it? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Why can't you seek consensus before acting? Why must you continue to resort to disruption? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed...

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Perhaps you missed where I informed you that if you edit-warred the bad press-multi reference back on that talk page, I'd seek to have you barred from all reversions on all talk pages. I thought I'd put it here so you know that it appears that your nearly-sole contribution to that talk page is a repeated attempt to put back a defamatory blog piece. Don't do so again, or I will seek to have you barred from repeating this same action, over and over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You should additionally be aware of WP:3rr which you are quite close to violating. Hipocrite (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm well avare of that policy. But the balantant removal of this section over and over again is ridicoulous and extremly damaging to Wikipedia. I see it as borderline WP:Vandalism (here's is NO WP:AGF), and therefor WP:3rr probably do not apply. Here we even have a named editor in one of the sources that removes it ([12]). It's NOT DONE per WP:COI. Please do check my talk edit history, and you see that i don't "your nearly-sole contribution to that talk page is a repeated attempt to put back a defamatory blog piece". I also suspect some Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Close_relationships but cannot pinpoint it, exept for the language used ("trash" etc.). Nsaa (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You are edit warring at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. WP:3RR definitely applies to this dispute. Please discuss this at #Press coverage before re-adding the {{press}} template. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes and maybe you can help me reinsert it since it's removed by extremely dubious grounds, see for example the three latest removals as pointed out here. Can you please look into the COI stuff. It doesn't look good, and I start understanding why some of the editors are so aggressively removing well sourced material. Nsaa (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Nsaa, the COI issue has been raised before (here). No consensus was reached and the result of my trying to argue the same points you raised was an indef block, later reverted to time served +9hr. I think fighting this out on the TP is inappropriate and a decision to fight it out in the proper forum should be made with great caution. JPatterson (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Read citations before tagging

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this tag, you ignore the fact that the immediately following sentence has a reference, and that that reference supports both sentences. I suggest you read the references to nearby sentences before spewing fact tags - it would save me time and you embarassment. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not embarrassing to question what I see as an unsupported statement. In this area I think it's required to add a source to every claim made in the article, and also include a quote from the article referenced to make some more context as I did here [13]. Nsaa (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this edit, you left out a closing quote which is making it hard to understand your point. If you could fix this it would help. Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think that you will find this YouTube video highly enjoyable. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious ... Nsaa (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked it! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have 1 hour and 35 minutes to spend, this talk, Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul, is a fine piece. This video is the main reason I has gone from accepting AGW as something the science was quite settled on to be quite sceptical about the hole AGW/IPCC thing ... Nsaa (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Too far

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Chaps, this is addressed to Nsaa and UnitAnode on your talk pages.

The issues are this edit and its follow-up. Please, it is unacceptable on any Wikipedia article talk page to address the editor, and particularly to attribute malicious motives to your fellow volunteers. You both know this, you're not newcomers.

I will give you the advice I give to everybody who departs from civil discussion into such personal attacks: go to dispute resolution. It is not optional. You must seek to resolve the problems by the appropriate methods. --TS 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

An example [14] and another one ... Yes off course, but at this area Wikipedia has experienced a new thing as far as I'm aware of. Why did you not warn after this edit Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_27#More_fuel_for_Solomon and comments like this in "worthless opinion pieces filled with inaccuracy and stuff they just made up." attacking Lawrence Solomon([15]) and James Delingpole ([16]) by Scjessey (talk · contribs)? As far as I see you should have kept your hands off and let other more neutral people doing this comment. As an good faith edit to you who was offended by it and others, I've strike it out. Nsaa (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

  Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors as you have done here. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content. Can you then please restore the content removed [17] [18] by these editors? Content sourced by BBC ... It's borderline vandalism. So give both user (William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) and Hipocrite (talk · contribs)) a warning and restore it? Nsaa (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
So take you own advice. Drop the Green Party stuff, which is wrong anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I see it's not wrong if we talks about you ... William Connolley: "He was also a Green Party candidate for South Cambridgeshire District Council or Cambridgeshire County Council every year from 2001 to 2005."[19]. This was not the main point made by me. It's just the attitude to remove every sound critical comments of the supposedly AGW "scientific consensus" (since you have an Phd. you know as me that we don't have any consensus in the science, its political ... ) out there. Nsaa (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You are multiply wrong. As I've said, I'm not a GP activist. As I've said, even if I was then by your own arguments above you shouldn't have mentioned it. I don't have a Ph. D.. I don't remove *any* sound criticism William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so our article about you[20] in the main space is wrong then? (I've not checked the source for this) "Connolley holds an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a DPhil from the University of Oxford for his work on numerical analysis."? Nsaa (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no interest in the WMC article.

As to my talk page: please don't interrupt conversations there. In fact, please read the notice at the top, and restrict yourself to only necessary posts there. If you have anything you feel you wish to discuss, you may leave me a neutral note on my page and invite me here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

your comment.

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

your comment at william connolley's page was extremely insightful. since he removed that comment, and is removing all comments which he finds inconvenient, i thought i would repost your comment here at your page. It contains much useful data, so I didn't want it to get overlooked. please feel free to be in touch. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment:

I've soon been on en-Wikipedia for five years, and it has been terrible starting to edit on AGW issues. Until I came across this area I had extrmly good faith in the process that made Wikipedia WP:NPOV and presented every view in a not WP:UNDUE way, but after the AGW issues I lost much of it. We have an environment where even extremely well sourced statements just get removed when it not fits the AGW case. (it's enough to mention "Climategate" that was removed many times in the article about this controversy (hack as they prefer to call it) even if every source on earth now uses it). How is it possible to make an good cooperative environment when some of the AGW editors go on like this? I can examplifies it with this article Lawrence Solomon and some of the diffs: [21] [22] [23] by WMC [24] by WMC, he is not an environmentalist according to the AGW, even if its supported by many WP:RS sources, [25] Nsaa (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! As long as none of the administrators remove edits from the history by deleting the actual page and just restore some of the revisions (or removed from even the administrators by Wikipedia:Hiding_revisions,(no deletion of this talk page in the deletion log ) but that is not done in many cases), everything is in it here User_talk:William_M._Connolley&action=history. The above edit is here. It is not a good way of handling his talk page, but it's up to him on how he will do it. Also, you can search the history by using this wikiblame.php?lang=en&article=User+talk%3AWilliam+M.+Connolley. Nsaa (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I've just gone through the history for the template {{Global warming}}. Guess what, we should not help people find Climategate or the Hockey stick controversy:
These tree guys has done a "good" job keeping these two article out of the nav.template: ChrisO (talk · contribs), William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) and KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs):[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Nsaa (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Global warming controversy

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've removed several instances of soap-boxing and personal attacks from the above talk page. Please remember that the template and associated articles are under probation so a higher standard of conduct is expected. --TS 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha keep on suppressing it? So it's ok for WMC to calling my addition for spam. This is just ridiculous! Please restore it. Nsaa (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
And when the same articles is added to the main template they're removed. Can yo restore it then there and I will gladly add a WP:GS7 to {{Global warming controversy}}? Nsaa (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Global warming controversy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Global warming controversy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a larger article on the overall climategate issue in incubation. This is an invitation for you to contribute. TMLutas (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Nsaa (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tip

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think it's acceptable to call an editor arrogant. I would remove/refactor that comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on that. This was a feeling (more appropiate in a blog post), not something we do at Wikipedia. I've just rephrased it. Nsaa (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Dolo
Italy
Halewood
United States
Jesolo
Wildcat! BBS
France
Old Bay Seasoning
Israel
Baghdadi Jews
Protocol (diplomacy)
China
Quinary
Coat of arms of Ontario
ISS
Canada
Poland
Germany
Portogruaro
Cleanup
Jesus
George Washington
Abstract (summary)
Merge
Spodumene
Coal
Asterism (gemmology)
Add Sources
Racism
Washout
Ozone depletion
Wikify
Slovenia
Appropriation (art)
Magna Carta
Expand
Kyoto Protocol
Effects of global warming
Inglewood Park Cemetery

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Byline

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Byline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Meisterkoch (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicinernes Skiklub Svartor

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Baby shower

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Nsaa!

You did not complete the AfD nomination for Baby shower (or Twinkle failed to do so). Would you like to complete the nomination? Honestly, though, I see no other possible outcome than (Speedy) Keep from the resulting debate :) Regards, decltype (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapse top

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at Template talk:Collapse top.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

[37] I believe this article is under a 1r restriction, you seem to have done two today, would you please self revert your last edit, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I rolled my last edit back. I'm not sure if I did a revert on this earlier, but I revert it since its so hard article. Thanks.
Cool, i think the 1r covers the entire article, not just sections. Better safe than sorry and it might be best to seek clarification from an admin on this. mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Way_forward

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

W.r.t. your placing Dave souza's initial presentation into a div box with visible references-- nice work. Until you demonstrated it there, I hadn't known that we had the capability to format a second, third, etc., "ref group" and reflist. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (Talk) 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Stuff

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi. I must admit, you really confused me by reassigning Ticket:2010040910011249 to me; I assumed it was related to a ticket I had already handled. Maybe a bit more than FYI next time? :D We process typically a dozen or more articles a day through CP, so I'm afraid that I don't watchlist them or really remember their details.

Given that action and your note at Talk:Daniel Gajski, I just wanted to let you know that if a ticket comes in for an article that has already gone through WP:CP (or G12, for that matter) and the content has been removed, you should restore it in accordance with the FAQ and put the proper OTRS template on the article's talk page {{ConfirmationOTRS}} is the best for text). I'll do it this time, but it's a pretty straightforward procedure. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Except with one additional complication here. Since the person who placed the text is not the copyright holder, we also have to use an attribution template on the article's face. {{CCBYSASource}} works, since it isn't dually licensed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you made an edit to a page related to climate change ever?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm wondering - have you ever substantially edited a page related to climate change, or do you merely revert other editors as part of various edit wars? If you have, could you point out one content edit you've made? Just checking something. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I found one. Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Look at my edit history? Nsaa (talk · contribs) Nsaa (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Objectionable comments

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hei Nsaa, passing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris's talk page I noticed the discussion concerning two edits that you feel were objectionable. To attempt to explain further, 'Have you stopped beating your wife' is given as an example of an objectionable question, in that whatever the answer, it involves admitting to the beating - the phrase is used when someone feels that they have been given a loaded question to answer, it is certainly not an insult, more a request to rephrase the question. As to 'assume', the full phrase is "Don't assume as it makes an ass out of you (u) and me", which is rather lame, but certainly not an insult either. Both cases rely on the reader understanding the meaning, as to call someone a wifebeater or an ass would be insulting. Having spent a total of 7 years working in Norway over the years, I've had to explain a lot of unusual English idiom that I had used without considering my audience (generally including speakers of several other language as well as Norwegian), so I can understand any confusion that may have arisen. I hope that this helps. Mvh, Mikenorton (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Anyway in this combative environment it looks a bit odd using such phrases. Why just not state that the user thinks its a loaded question if that is the case? Nsaa (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Good question, I use rather too many such phrases myself. Mikenorton (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[38] Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[39] if you'd like to comment. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe you asked for help with your English?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not an English teacher (my older brother is) and so I probably can't articulate why some of your grammer is incorrect but I can correct it for you. So, to help you in this function, I'll present a post of yours I just read and then attempt to fix it.

This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected (hopefully!):

This is so bad. I have no words for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz's comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion on topic? I find it to be totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes, give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What is Atmoz trying to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and are then blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried not to rewrite them too much, but hopefully you find this helpful. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - Nsaa remember to always reread what you post - :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Revert

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Nsaa!! Here you reverted an edit that justified itself by referencing the talkpage. You said you didn't see it as in line with the section titled "Outcome" I believe what was meant was the similarly titled "Outcome again". Would you mind checking in on that latter section? If you still stand by your revert you have my blessing, if not, self-revert?--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I will self revert. Nsaa (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Self Revert Done. Providing links to the discussion can help when editing, especially when we talk about something with more than one discussion ongoing. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

HI, just a note you commented on: User talk:137.219.252.3; just wanted to let you know that this is a university IP (JCU, Townsville, QLD, AUS) Everyone on the university outsources through it so for example; I saw a "message for me; from you" even though I personally never did anything to wiki. Thought you might want to know so you don't keep posting to that IP.

Note that user talk pages receive messages for everyone who uses that IP to edit. If you want to avoid irrelevant messages, create an account.—Tetracube (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite web3

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Cite web3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Language Barrier

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hei Officer :) I mean this Schulz guy repeated the smear, doubnting I would be able to convey irony or sarkasm in a second language. I gave him a sort of example in my reply and insofar I dont see the need to bring him to court. I strongly believe he will try it the other way round. Polentario (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see that you can manage to write Norwegian :-). Keep up the good work and just don't bother when people says "he's also the creator of the utterly dreadful de:Gore-Effekt article, which makes this one look like featured article quality by comparison. I'll AfD that too shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)"[40]. Nsaa (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Youre welcome. I translated no:Terje Rollem from Norwegian into German and expanded the articel, it has been mentioned on the main page as well, but I wouldnt go in the other direction. The Climatist Gang in the German WP tried an AfD against de:Gore-Effekt as well but its been accepted. So Signore Schulz has to provide more than hot air to get further. Lets see. Ha de bra !Polentario (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I've not read about Terje Rollem (hm. we need an article here also :-) before. I've asked JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs) to be more polite in his comments also. Nsaa (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Al Gore Effect"

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per [41] at least some if not all of sources 8, 9, 10, and 11 use "Al Gore effect". Active Banana (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will add it :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits at The Gore Effect

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I've reverted them all. We're discussing the lead on the talk page and you're changing it radically. Your other radical changes will need consensus. You don't have it. Try to get it first. Then change the article in those radical ways if you get consensus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not changed the lead? I've only done very small changes, and technical movements of references. Did I remove this? Where did I do that? Nsaa (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I"m sorry. I think I misinterpreted what was going on. Your edits reverted to the radically different new lead (your combined edits here [42]) while a discussion was taking place (near the bottom of the talk page). Was that unintentional? I know Mackan79 and I told him I was sure he wouldn't make a change if he understood the matter was under discussion. You've actually made many good edits to the article today. I'm sorry for thinking you'd rewritten the lead, and I see you've reverted per discussion in another edit today, so you know all about that. I guess I'm just sick of CC shenanigans today. I should have toned down the edit summary too. I'll look over your edits and self-revert to retain all your technical changes. I'll get back to you when I'm done, and if you think I should self-revert more, I'm happy to discuss it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahh. I'm not so into the article yet that I spot what I did wrong here. As fare as I know, the only change I did to the lead today was adding a "-" to the quote (as the source says) [43], pinpointed the source to the Toronto based newspaper Globe and Mail [44], and the most radical editing done, by adding "some" here: [45]. As fare as I see I've not done anything else to the lead (except moving down to the ref section and updating the refs). Nsaa (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Your ten edits ending here [46] also changed the lead paragraph. Was that unintentional? I'm trying to restore all your technical improvements, but it's confusing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As best I can tell, this edit [47] restores your changes, but I'm not sure I identified them all. If you see anything else, please tell me and I'll restore it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Notice of Probation enforcement request

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the absence of the filing party, or others, I would advise you that you have been named as a party at WP:CC probation/Requests for enforcement#marknutley & Nsaa. You may respond in the appropriate section, if desired. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the notification. Nsaa (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratel

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ratel (talk · contribs) is currently indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. You are of course free to present whatever diffs you like at your evidence section in the climate change arbitration, but I thought I might save you the time of gathering evidence with an eye to proposing remedies involving Ratel. Diffs involving Ratel might, of course, still be useful for highlighting the behaviour of others or the editing environment in general. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. that's a good point. I've not following everything in this area, just seen some not so good behavior. For me it's the behavior that's the problem (Incivility, not assuming good faith etc.), not the specific users and this users socketpuppetry. I will strike it although. Nsaa (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clive Crook

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Clive Crook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While there are links to article by Crook, there is no evidence of substantial material in independent sources about him. Not evidently notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 
Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at 68.122.68.131's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erica Blasberg

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a heads up an anonymous user is insisting on putting the copyrighted AP story into the Erica Blasberg article. Since you removed it earlier today as well, I thought I'd give you the heads up. (Yeah, I'm an anonymous user as well, but some of us do realize what copyright is!) 68.146.81.123 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded at Talk:Erica_Blasberg#Copyvio_removal. Nsaa (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Climate Group

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've responded to your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamondevalera2 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Immigration to Norway

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Nsaa, I see we've both warned Knarum (talk · contribs) with no response but continued actions at this article (well, mine may have been successful - no new personal attacks AFAIK). What do you think - time to bring it to AN/I? You and I had an ec just now btw, but since you only had removed his last edit didn't self-revert. Best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I missed this, thanks! I think it would be an good idea to bring in an administrator or ANI if the user continues to revert after his 3RR-warning (you indicated that the user got the message and stopped personal attacks, so it's fine to wait and see, if what I assume to be a new contributor, understands the 3RR rule). Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, AGF + wait&see is fine with me :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, they've been at it again. I'm not sure where to report this (editwar/user problem/incidents/...) so I left a [48] at Sjakkalle asking him to take a look. Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've given him a final warning and now it's just up to an person with admin rights to block the user if the user continues reverting without discussing it on the talk page first. Maybe a report here Wikipedia:AN/EW is the next step (since the user has gotten the warning on 3RR, and keep doing reverts [49] [50] [51]) Nsaa (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Hill (blog)

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please don't undo a previously agreed merge without discussion. I've restored the merge; if you disagree, the talk page reemains open William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded it … Nsaa (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to expand it, feel free to discuss that on talk. B ut don't unmerge against consensus, and do avoid PA's. Please also see the recent FoF's at the Cl Ch case, which you may wish to ponder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Montford and Bishop Hill (blog)

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This edit summary is completely unacceptable, as is the use of rollback in your prior edit. You should not be soliciting others to help you out in an edit war with your ideological opponent in any circumstance. If you want his edit reverted, make your case on the talk page and establish consensus; do not further battleground behavior. NW (Talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, you don't WP:OWN an article any more than any other Wikipedian does. You were editing against talk page consensus, so this edit and edit summary were also not the best way to go about things. NW (Talk) 23:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare: I'm concerned about how you're going about this. Instead of focusing on Nsaa, why don't you focus on the editors who are the most disruptive and work your way down until the battlefield atmosphere has ended? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Presumably because Nsaa has a good claim on "disruptive editor of the day". Instead of just kibitzing, why don't *you* help by encouraging Nsaa to avoid disruption by undoing consensus merges? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure it was an "idealogical battle" rather than non-understanding as regards how consensus works, and the stepping stones toward agreeing consensus. It has to be said that Climate Change subjects recently rarely example best WP practices, so they might not have been too familiar on how things should work. If Nsaa is now proceeding per policy I do not see any reason to dwell on the earlier misunderstanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I acted in good faith and tried to add the new stuff as you proposed here. I was stupid of me making the comments in the Edit summary field above as NW points out. I had some IRW problems yesterday and should not have edited yesterday (You know the IRS people are not easy to handle in countries like Norway ...). Normally Wikipedia is a great place editing in cooperation with others. I love that. This area has developed to be a very unpleasant area and I will go out of it. Why bother? It's "great" that the British taxpayers will subsidize the offshore windmills that will be build by Norwegian firms at Doggerbank and other places. Wikipedia has for a long time been an area where Greenpeace, The Green Party (foremost known proponent WMC) and their likings rule the floor and make the environment for others very bad. Look at the extremely aggressive (removal of Climategate) discussion and repeatedly removal of even mentioning Climategate in the Climategate article and everyone see how bad the situation is here. Even Jimbo Wales has stated how silly the prior title to the current "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" was: "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article [...] but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)"[52] and "It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what it is called - it is up to the world at large, and they have - overwhelmingly - decided.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)" [53] on his talk page. Why do we still have articles like this Climate Group? It make Wikipedia looks silly, but the floor has ruled Keep without doing a damn to fix the problems (Keep It's a terrible article and it does read very much like an advertisement., Article has unfortunately been repeatedly whitewashed by PR hacks, The currently article is uncited and looks very spammy., and it was keept … ). It's great it has been there for over 9 months and it stills read like an WP:ARTSPAM article. No I'm out of this environment. Nsaa (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reference help

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Reference help has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the wake of the arbcom case

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

These two edits, the welcoming of a disruptive, SPA sock puppet[54] and the editing of AQFK's subpage[55] show a lack of attentiveness on your part regarding the problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm… I'm not sure what you're pointing at? I added a welcome template to a new user (we should be friendly for everyone, i.e. Assume Good Faith as far as I know). I didn't see that this was a blocked user. Although maybe the welcome template can teach people some of the basic principle governing Wikipedia? That was my intention. And can you explain why I should not build on the article you mentioned? Have I done something wrong against User:A Quest For Knowledge? As far as I know he can edit his own userspace and edit or/and revert me iff I've done something wrong? Nsaa (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a new user, and every indication pointed to a disruptive, SPA sock puppet. As for AQFK, the answer is, I'm not sure. He's been deleting his user pages, and I'm curious if editors are able to edit on climate change topics in their user space. My guess is that they are not, which means you are editing by proxy for AQFK. I could be wrong on this. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've not done any analysis of the user I gave the welcome message. I do a lot of welcome stuff (check my edit history). As for AQFK I will ask him iff I can move his list out of his userspace to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Climategate usage (an other list created by me iff I'm remembers correctly) iff he is not able to edit in his userspace. Nsaa (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
He returned as Flower taster (talk · contribs) and is now blocked. You've been here long enough to see and recognize the pattern. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, nice that you know so. I'm still not sure why you think a welcome message is wrong. Is there a policy against giving an account a welcome message? Nsaa (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in this edit [56] where this (editing in the topic area on by banned users on their own talk page) already has occurred. This is maybe covered here Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors? Nsaa (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Noting an uncontroversial current event that requires updating a Wikipedia page is not the same as continuing to edit a contentious user subpage that is highly controversial and promotes conflict. There is nothing equivalent here. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying really. You claim that I «show a lack of attentiveness on your part regarding the problem at hand.» Please re-factor that and we can go on and edit in an corporative environment where we assume good faith. I assume you talk about User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/List_of_reliable_sources_which_use_the_term_Climategate when you say «contentious user subpage that is highly controversial»? It's difficult for me to understand such a charge (I've done this 3 months earlier Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Climategate usage together with some others [57]) This kind of list helps to establish the fact that this term is the name used for this incident. Even mr. Wales have stated so repeatably (and you know that very well, see also Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/RFC_Climategate_rename_policy_query). Nsaa (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Heavy-handedness at CRU email controversy move discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sure you're aware that in discussions at Wikipedia, it's generally considered pretty heavy-handed to comment on every comment made in opposition to your opinion. In light of the fact that the entire area of climate change is under the aegis of arbcom restrictions, can I ask that you ease up a bit in the move discussion? I'm willing to continue discussing the substantive issues here with you, if you'd like, but I think what you're doing over there is creating a hostile environment that's likely to scare away badly-needed fresh eyes.

jps (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've not commented on every opinion made against my "opinion". I did 4 comments [58] in an discussion 5 days old with around 30 comments. Normaly I don't do this, but here it was so many comments that needed a correction before the period closes ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened" as stated in the start of the discussion), that I just did it. (Changing your user name from ScienceApologist[59], Joshua P. Schroeder [60] and now jps make it hard for others following your way. Probably not a good thing, but that's my opinion) … Nsaa (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 
Hello, Nsaa. You have new messages at Volpane's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nsaa/User_talk_2010&oldid=1139477183"